Closed doors force Open Meetings Watch

Published 6:00 am Monday, February 2, 2004

In October of 2000, we wrote an editorial that asked in thefirst sentence, “Why should the public care if government entitiesoperate under a cloud of secrecy? Why should we care if agovernment body of elected officials goes behind closed doors todiscuss things, which affect the tax dollars we send them?”

We answered the rhetorical questions with, ‘we can think ofseveral reasons.’

The editorial went on to list several of the secret meetingsthat year, such as one where a 60 percent pay raise was approved byBrookhaven aldermen, or another that abolished the airport board,and another about the 2001 city budget.

Subscribe to our free email newsletter

Get the latest news sent to your inbox

Move forward to 2004 to the same question, and we have tomention only one reason — the recent decision by the board toprivatize the city’s solid waste service and the veto of thatdecision Friday afternoon by Mayor Bill Godbold.

In an editorial last Sunday and several prior to that, wechastised the city board for its secret meetings by asking somebasic questions any citizen might want to know regarding theplanned changes — questions that could easily be addressed in apublic forum. Instead, the city board chooses to let votersguess.

Back in 2000 — due to the increasing volume of questionablesecret meetings held by the city board and a challenge by the boardto “take them to court” — we created a weekly summary of allexecutive sessions held by various public boards in this area.

Our weekly report drew local and statewide attention in numerousnewspapers and other publications. We pulled the report a yearlater after the various boards, including the Brookhaven board,began opening up their meetings and allowing local residents tounderstand reasons behind board decisions.

State law does allow public boards to operate behind closeddoors in certain instances. What state law does not do is clearlydefine those instances, so it becomes very easy for boards to slidebehind closed door for reasons of “personnel” or “litigation,” bothfavorites of the city board.

While state law does make allowances for some closed meetings,it should be noted that it does not require closedmeetings. It only gives the boards the ability to do so if a boardso wishes.

Unfortunately, we have found the Brookhaven board to beincreasingly closing the board’s doors.

While not all board members support the closed meetings, themajority do, and thus the public is kept in the dark on issues fromannexation to garbage pickup to building projects such as a newcity hall, a railroad station and other projects. Tens of thousandsof tax dollars have been spent on consultants, architects andlawyers, all in a cloak of secrecy. We think such meetings areunfortunate.

So again, we find it necessary to roll out our weekly report onclosed meetings. Called the Open Meetings Watch, beginning todayand for Sundays hereafter, we will print a listing of closedmeetings of the various public boards. In the list, we will notethe purpose of the meeting, the reason for its closure, who calledthe closure and who opposed the closing of the meeting.

You can be the judge if the secrecy is warranted.

Write to Bill Jacobs at P.O. Box 551, Brookhaven, Miss.39602, or send e-mail to bjacobs@dailyleader.com.